Apple Inc. (AAPL) Message Board
-
Seeking Alpha-- Will Apple Be Around in Three Yrs?? .... who
are the dimwits journalists? Now really how can they continue to insinuate this trash.. National Enquirer all of them...
Sentiment: Buy
-
why are u guys talking about a clueless blogger on seeking ?..he is nothing more than a fear mongering douche like donass..gggggg
-
seeking alpha is pathetic stuff... you actually read that junk?
- 1 Reply to funniebucket
-
Imagine if they were praising aapl. They'd be your best friends :)
-
Yeah and back in Sept AAPL was without a doubt going to 1000! Right?
-
Never ever even read an article by Seeking Alpha. They are the are fraud. They have several people writing totally different views and they promote the one that turns out to be correct after the facts.
-
It should still be around in 3 years but it will be gone, finished, bankrupted in 5. Guaranteed.
Watch and Learn- 1 Reply to frank_capra_04
-
you really don't know what your talking about... they are going to make a jump into another investment industry... or if they are not already creating an energy saving industry already...
is Singer still in sewing machines?... no... they are aero-space...
watch and learn
-
He stated that investors can not assume the iPhone and iPad will continue to exist in three years. He said investors can not assume Apple will continue as a "cool" brand. What?!!? Let me correct this idiot. Investors MUST ASSUME something about any company's future before they invest. If one refuses to invest based at least partially on some assumptions, one can not invest in stocks at all!! DUH!!!! The stock market carries risk based on assumptions and projections and options of all kinds. No risk, no reward. I ASSUME Apple will exist in three years. I see NO risk in that, by the way.
Seeking Alpha needs to filter out the imbeciles like this guy.- 1 Reply to todd0888
-
Nah, the author is wrong. Aapl will sell the same 5 year old device, iPhone, for year to come and people will happily pay $800 year after year.
-
Paid for by Vanity Fair.
Now that's a respected financial publication.
Does not anyone else find this beyond incredulous?- 1 Reply to i5unknown
-
They tried to get a writer from Better Homes & Gardens but they were unavailable to analyze AAPL
Sentiment: Strong Buy
-
that moron ANALyst has been wrong every time. He's just a shortie panicking after what Einhorn suggested.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
-
Remember mot, NOK, rimm and best of all, palm?
- 2 Replies to danossa
-
Right, but the reality is is that two things have to happen for a technology leader to completely fall from grace. First, there must be a competing innovation that is demonstrably better than the incumbent leader, and, second, the current leader must be doing multiple things to offend its existing customer base. Both must happen.
Now, if you believe what I say above, then you can apply it to Apple and see if both hold true. In my opinion, there is no great innovation by a competitor that is demonstrably better than Apples products in their respective categories. So that checks off for now as safe, unless someone wants to offer up an example.
As far as offending their customer, well, I suppose you could make a case on price for iDevices, but price differentials when they do exist is not driven by Apples offensive actions, but more so by competitors willingness to sell at or below cost or competitors prices being subsidized by Googles search revenues and profits. Category by category it is hard to see an actual example of where Apple might be offending its customer. In fact, I would argue they are doing a pretty good job serving them. I suppose you could also point out screen size for smartphones and open vs. closed systems, but Apple has already shown the willingness to change with the introduction of the iPad mini and a 4 inch screen on the phone. The debate over closed versus open is not in reality an offensive point with consumers. Both are legitimate approaches with trade offs of positives and negatives.
Again, past tech leaders have fallen from grace mainly for two reasons: a competing innovation passing them by, and a companies unwillingness to correct offending acts against its customers. -
Handset companies only. Period. Anyone with even a speck of brain knows that. I guess we have learned something about your brain dumbossa.
-